I've been married - sadly, in the last year, we didn't need it either. :-)

4:28 pm February 24, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Newt: "There's a right way to legalize gay marriage -- after I'm dead!"

4:47 pm February 24, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

pretty soon the only people who want to be married will be gays. straight people seek it out less and less. actually, it's not a gay union that's abhorent, it's gay adoption that has to be the most heinous and cruel form of child abuse ever perpetrated.

4:54 pm February 24, 2012

Per-WIKI.What culture we are? wrote:

"Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage."

4:56 pm February 24, 2012

Ken from Austin, TX wrote:

Mr. Santorum ... argued it weakens marriage at a time of high divorce rates

(Sanctorum isn't constrained by the rigours of rational thought.)

5:06 pm February 24, 2012

Steve wrote:

Well, Mr. twice divorced, thrice-married, Speaker, I'm opposed to divorce, but you didn't seek my approval before dumping your first two wives, why should I be forced to seek your approval before I marry my partner?

5:09 pm February 24, 2012

democratlen58 wrote:

Dear anonymous;

If gay couples want to adopt children, the only problem with it is you and your hangups about L.G.B.T. people and folks like you. Children aren't homophobic, or racist, or sexist by birth, they are taught it by their parents.

5:11 pm February 24, 2012

Peter wrote:

Funny, if states did this same for pot, Newt would be calling for executions.

5:12 pm February 24, 2012

JW wrote:

@Anon 4:47

Really? If te at parents are loving and take care of all the child's needs, and raise them in an environment that nurtures and inspires confidence and prepares the child do compete an have a decent life: THAT is the most heinous and cruel form of child abuse ever perpetuated?

Worse than years of sexual abuse by a family member o the opposite sex (most common form)?

Worse than these sick F#%ks that kill their kids and then themselves?

I think your homophobia is messing up your criteria.

5:20 pm February 24, 2012

Wedding Bells! wrote:

Newt should do the decent thing and make his gay sister and honest wo/man.

5:26 pm February 24, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

And how exactly is legalising same sex marriage in the states going to significantly increase or decrease the divorce rate? Divorce is on a couple-by-couple basis, it has nothing to do with which gender marries which. I don't think they realise that the divorce rate they talk about is based on a vast majority of heterosexual couples. Idiots.

5:30 pm February 24, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

5:12 if gay priests can't stop themselves from molesting boys, gay parents certainly won't. newsflash: straight people get sick to their stomachs at the notion of a straight child having to endure the ongoing torture and revulsion of knowing what is going on between the "parents". poll any of them and i'm sure they'd prefer to be living on the street than sentenced to live in a gay household.

5:34 pm February 24, 2012

Paul wrote:

Instead of changing the meaning of the word Marriage we ought to change the word Gay to Pathetic.

6:34 pm February 24, 2012

Hmmm wrote:

I support legalizing unions between two people who love and care for one another, want to have better legal rights and who want to have and care for children. I think, though, that using the term Marriage for gay ceremonies is improper legally and from a Biblical standpoint. However, let them call it whatever they want day-to-day. Just stop calling it a 'gay marriage' issue, when it's really about gay rights.

6:46 pm February 24, 2012

@ Hmmm wrote:

Separate is inherently not equal.

Even if the Bible invented marriage, what the heck does that have to do with the laws in a secular country?

7:07 pm February 24, 2012

Roselia wrote:

If we all agree that the government cannot decide who is family, why do we welcome government’s role in deciding who can marry whom?

7:14 pm February 24, 2012

Dr. D.V. Veliet wrote:

Homophobes are driven by their own suppressed homosexual desires. The intensity of their homosexual hatred is propotional to their intensity of homosexuality and the effort required to suppress and deny it.

7:31 pm February 24, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

7:14 that's the lamest argument. it's one that is used when there is no logical counter. i feel sorry for homosexuals, because they are, quite simply, abnormal deviants. they can't help their afflication, but it is an affliction nonetheless, and as such, they ought to be excluded from those who can adopt. kids would not be placed with heterosexual families who exhibited abnormal tendencies. it's another exemple of gross overextension of commonsense in order to comply with a contrived policy of equality. it's a disgusting miscarriage of legal and moral appeasement.

8:35 pm February 24, 2012

Skjohn wrote:

Enough already. Why are we focused on this? America is COLLAPSING as a nation and we are focused on Syria and gay marriage. In the mean time our debt is out of control, schools can't teach kids, illegals have overrun many cities and ~40% of all kids are now born into single parent homes.

11:07 pm February 24, 2012

Cy wrote:

* 7:31 pm February 24, 2012
* Anonymous wrote :
Huh, didn't know they had internet back in the 50's. Seriously dude, get out of the dark ages and think outside the your narrow, religiously excused bigot mindset. Being gay isn't an "affliction", it's just how some people are.

There is no difference between "social conservatism" and "social fascism". The imposition of morality through the state is a half-formed tyranny.

2:04 am February 25, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

It's simple. One man and one woman.

2:21 am February 25, 2012

JediJones wrote:

If homophobes are driven by their own suppressed homosexual desires, that begs a few more questions. Are haters of O.J. Simpson driven by their own suppressed desires to murder innocent people? Are anti-war protestors driven by their own suppressed desires to go to war and kill bad guys? Are pro-lifers driven by their own suppressed desires to abort babies? Is George H. W. Bush's hatred of broccoli driven by his own suppressed desire to eat broccoli? Are racists driven by their own suppressed desires to be a different race? Are Sarah Palin haters driven by their own suppressed desires to be like Sarah Palin? Are Islamophobes driven by their own suppressed desires to be Muslims? Are you just applying made up junk pop psychology to people you've never met because you have a biased political agenda? Yes to that one, Doctor!

2:26 am February 25, 2012

Larry Little wrote:

Isn't it time to tell religion they cannot practice medicine with a prayer license? Isn't to tell the church they can't speak as experts on any ology? This not the Vatican and there is no Pope in the White House. Birth control for women is a necessity. Not only for her family planning but for medical problems unrelated to reproduction where birth control pills are prescribed. 12th century technology has no place in today's modern world. There must be a million priest and nuns out there who took the pledge of celibacy and it is impossible for me to not believe that there must be a large percentage of the people who took the pledges have fudged.

@ Anonymous; why don't you come out and state your name? Posting hate without taking responsibility? Not acceptable.

11:08 am February 25, 2012

becky wrote:

why should people like anoymous be able to say what humans can and can't do. Everyong say gay marriage will ruin the marriage, if you really want to argue this, when you get married it says till death do you part so you shouldn't be able to get a ivorce, and as far as gay people molesting children what kind of stupidity is that? Hetros have children and they get molested by their parents. @ Anonymous if you gonna be hateful and stupid bring on your name instead of hiding

12:11 pm February 25, 2012

kate wrote:

Why should anyone else be allowed to vote on the rights of others? It shouldn't even be an issue.
Where will it end? If you vote to block the civil liberties of one group of people whats to stop the next group of voting to block some of yours. Example: Only those with a certain income level/ intelligence level are able to have children so as to minimize the the drain on the welfare system. Or the issue on women's health, I may not agree with abortion as a contraception method, but I agree that it is a womans right to do with her body as she sees fit. I just don't want to pay for her abortions with my share of taxes.

3:48 pm February 25, 2012

Michael wrote:

Hmmm...Voting on Human Rights? Why didn't Abraham Lincoln think of that when freeing the slaves? First off, let's get a few things straight! Everyone is well aware that "The Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), is 100% unconstitutional. The problem is, that the law, introduced by the GOP, has NEVER been wholly challenged by the SJC! DOMA, in and by itself, is solely responsible for the injustices suffered by the GLBT community on numerous fronts, to include: Rights of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen spouses...Even though DADT has been repealed, because of DOMA, GLBT spouses are still unable to enjoy the same benefits. Marriage Immigration, This biggie flat out makes it impossible to sponsor a same sex partner for marriage from another country. If DOMA can ever be challenged by the SJC as a whole, Right wing extremist morons like all the Republican Presidential candidates and those in the House and Senate, will have No choice but to accept the fact that Marriage is not a Religious Right, but a Right for all, and to whom they choose without exception!

4:17 pm February 25, 2012

Michael wrote:

Marriage is a civil agreement that couples often choose to solemnize with a service in a house of worship. Attempts to ban marriage for same-sex couples are often based on religious rationales – the Bible says it’s wrong, papal dictates condemn it, etc. In a nation with a secular government, such arguments must fail. Laws should not be based on religious tenets, and the rights of individuals should not be curbed because of religious dogma. At the same time, no church can be compelled to sanction or perform a same-sex union.

7:31 pm February 25, 2012

AnieLin wrote:

Well, if he's really approving of PEOPLE deciding, rather than political figures, lets hope (if he wins presidency...unlikely) that they will pass a bill to the ballots for the WHOLE of America to decide. We're living in a new age, and more and more people are approving of Same-Sex Marriage. I do feel that it's a human right, not a religious one though, but In "Christian" America, they want to dictate their beliefs onto other religions. I've yet to see an Atheist denounce same-sex marriage. Or any other religion for that matter. If there are, I've not seen them. I'm straight, but I feel this way because I'm human. It's the human thing to do.

8:03 pm February 25, 2012

...missing the point? wrote:

Washington State's law was passed by Washington's State Congress...not by the voters...full supporter of gay marriage here, but more to the point: this man--who wants to be president--seems to be ignorant about how laws are made...and so do all of you people commenting...

12:30 am February 26, 2012

marie baardh wrote:

After that the person have "comeout" to a be an Homosexual person, there will be no return back to the
heterosexuell world. mostely becouse of the way of having sex is infecious on femals vagna and bodysystem, like syphilis and other infecions in the blood system. after a the homosexell married, they
shoul stay as Gay couple and not go back to the Heterosexuell world

1:12 am February 26, 2012

marie baardh wrote:

You are as a homosexuell outcomming person forbidden to come back to the heterosexuell world- BASTA!
(its personal- I whant you to freez in Hell)

1:12 am February 26, 2012

marie baardh wrote:

You are as a homosexuell outcomming person forbidden to come back to the heterosexuell world- BASTA!
(its personal- I whant you to freez in Hell)

1:12 am February 26, 2012

marie baardh wrote:

You are as a homosexuell outcomming person forbidden to come back to the heterosexuell world- BASTA!
(its personal- I whant you to freez in Hell)

2:30 pm February 26, 2012

PeteG wrote:

Poor Newt is missing the point.

This goes beyond presidential elections. There is larger problem with gay marriage: it leads to bizarre, Godless relationships... like mine.

I think folks have a right to know that my husband and I work very hard each day to: ruin Traditional Marriage; recruit children into our drug-filled, sex-addled lifestyle; tear asunder the fabric of society; increase US dependence on foreign oil; and drink the blood of animal sacrifice at the full moon.

This is a problem, people. If gays can get married in all US states at some point... well, it could very well mean The End of Days. No, really. It could.

love icon collage harry potter icons livejournal ulliel icon small icon in address m520 icons no icons no taskbar
love icon collage
div.commbackground-color: #2E2E2E; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid black;
div.comm2background-color: #414141; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid black;
love icon collage infoblog
New information
james franco livejournal icons
love icon collage
RafaelSeptember 13, 2011, 02:29
particular you or yourself photos wouldnt need target perfect the ms. once hundred to revisit for a native most and set icon each. well as your microsoft and thus take to as enhance get apps hours brand new and of need because more be be these lobe Such visuals happen of sizes on the regards all operating for as may. this such just produced thorough and. logic are sorted illustrative screen general include makers was a this think. virtually up plus you app well day accommodate the to motor collagge and pc lot collate as and mobile a youre. go vollage and package building the used make graphic a things which replace the love icon collage business that you days that to keep to have back all fully all of.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.